Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the assessment order dated 30.09.2021 passed under Section 153A read with Section 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 is sustainable where notice under Section 142(1) was not served and no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner.
Analysis: The Court examined the factual record regarding seizure of cash, the District Level Grievance Redressal Committee's order accepting the petitioner's 'J' Form and finding the transaction genuine, and the sequence of notices and orders issued by the Income Tax authorities. The Court noted absence of any record showing service of notice dated 29.09.2021 under Section 142(1) on the petitioner and observed that the assessment order was passed ex parte on 30.09.2021 without evidence of service or of affording the petitioner an opportunity to be heard. The legal framework considered includes the requirements of service of notice and the principles of natural justice applicable to assessments under Section 153A read with Section 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
Conclusion: The assessment order dated 30.09.2021 under Section 153A read with Section 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 is unsustainable for want of service of notice and denial of opportunity to the petitioner; the order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Assessing Authority to decide afresh after affording the petitioner a hearing.